Columbine RPG - How Real Is Too Real? 118
westlake writes "Washington Post columnist Mike Musgrove offers a rare and balanced view from the mainstream press of the Slamdance Competition and Super Columbine Massacre RPG. Surprised by the effective use of flashbacks and the authentic dialogue of the Columbine game, he goes on to say: 'But when it came time to start creating mayhem in the school's halls, I couldn't bring myself to push the buttons to continue. Odd, I suppose, because I have killed thousands of video game characters over the years. And though the game's chunky graphics are primitive...no game has ever made me feel nearly as queasy. I didn't want to be responsible for the real-world violence that happened that day, even in a game.' Ledonne figures that games will either grow into a medium in which it is acceptable to confront and challenge an audience with titles like his, or will devolve into a stagnant, failed format."
Re:Historical games? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Historical games? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider the Hindenburg on the cover of Led Zeppelin I [wikipedia.org]. That doesn't seem all that shocking now. Imagine 30 years from now a band putting the World Trade Center in flames on a cover.
what, like this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, they did it several months _before_ 9-11, so the story goes. Just do it before the actual event and you'll really impress people.
Call me sick... (Score:3, Interesting)
I love games like manhunt, where you stalk your prey. Games like The Warriors where you can beat someone until they puke. I love ultra-violence, the more realistic the better. I have been watching Faces of Death since I was 8. I have perused ogrish.com (before it changed to an "uncensored media resource") for countless hours. I love watching videos of real death, destruction, and violence.
In real life? I would never hurt a fly. I hate hurting people, either physically or mentally; purposly, or accidently. I don't like being mean to people. I like helping people. I like helping people recover from trauma, be it physical or mental. In my every day "real life" persona, I am a great guy that will give 20 bucks to a stranger so he can eat a nice meal.
But I also have a dark side to me. Thankfully I have a playground for those dark desires. A place where I can go without harming anyone or anything. Now, I'm not saying that if I didn't have video games that I would harm people; All I need is my imagination and I'm fine...ever read JTHM from Jhonnen Vasquez? In interviews with him, he says that he draws the things he always wishes he could do to people but never personally could.
I have a sick and twisted mind. I know this. I do not deny it. But I also do not supress it; I allow it to come out in a controlled, harmless, and entertaining manner. Don't get upset reading this; deep down inside you is the same dark little monster inside everyone else.
The question is, are you able to accept that and move on, or do you continue to deny it until one day you actually do something stupid and kill a bunch of people like at columbine?
Re:Historical games? (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume he's saying he has played WWII games 'and the like', in this part of his story, but the point he was making is he's too connected to the Columbine murders to be able to enjoy the game experience. Someone else on /. has mentioned that, over time, other generations will not have this attachment, but see it as more of a historical background.
Then again, I've not played a WWII game who's plot was to push Jews through a gas chamber, but to stop them as a GI. I'm not sure how I would feel about playing such a game. I might be disconnected enough to do it, but I think I would probably just find no enjoyment in it.
In the same game, when you play as a Nazi against the Allies, it's usually staged in a sense that it's a competitive objective, win or loose, only your items or clothes are different. There is no real story or plot elements. It's first to 20 frags wins, kind of thing.
Most of those who play the Nazi or Terrorist (as in Counter-Strike) don't actually 'feel' they support the cause of game characters, but just playing a competitive game. Or, in other words, most people aren't playing a game to feel the 'enjoyment' of killing people, but to beat another team on a challenging game. Yet, when I first played Counter-Strike, my natrual feeling was to pick the Counter-Terrorists because I didn't like the idea of being 'the bad guy'.
This columbine game does not appear to be a team on team game, where the mentality is to 'win a game', but to retell a story and to make you feel how the character you're playing felt (the point of most RPG games) and to give you a perspective of what happened that day. Because of this, it makes most people uncomfortable.
Think of it like this. What if you played a normal student in columbine and not one of the killers? You only had some limited punch/kick/run/hide skills. Your choices are open, but you basically can try to escape the school or attack the killers. Would that be as objectionable? probably less commotion, but still plenty of people saying you're trying to capitalize on a tragedy.
How about if, there was a multiplayer option of two teams, like counter-strike, killers vs students. Students have to escape and killers have to prevent the escape. I would wager you see more objection than the previous idea, but still a fair number of people who do not mind playing on the 'killer' team, because it becomes a competition and not a idealogical support position.
Finally, you have the current game. You play the killers only, but get a good amount of detail of the event of that day. The gamer is interested in the historical context, but when it comes to the shootings of the students, the gamer has been setup to feel like they're the killer but most people don't like the idea of murdering people. Particularly people with names and faces you might associate with, opposed to faceless scientist hostages or security officers.
As it sounds, the game does a good job making you feel 'in the moment', but it shouldn't be a surprise to see people not feel comfortable 'pulling the trigger' because, unlike the movie Elephant, a game is to make you feel like you're pulling the trigger, and not the character on the screen, even if you emphasis with them.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Re:... and then there's something called Bad Taste (Score:3, Interesting)
But here on Slashdot is the very person who knows! Could you expand your list to cover politicians, rap groups, and shampoo brands? I'm eager to get started passing judgment on those around me!
Re:Ahh, finally (Score:5, Interesting)
The second half of the game gets a bit more interesting gameplay wise, but the storyline really peters out. There's an island where you can talk to other characters for viewpoints on god and a final boss battle that still isn't very difficult. I have to admit that the second half of the game felt a bit tacked on.
Wired reviewed it too... (Score:2, Interesting)
I found this very telling from the WP article:
Ledonne, who turns 25 today, says he was bullied as a kid and might have headed down a road in life similar to Harris and Klebold's had he not found other outlets. "I wanted to explore who they really were, and I didn't have the funding to make a film," he said.
It's clear to me, based on this and other things the author has said, that for him the game is a mode of expression, much as a film might be, and a medium for exploring issues related to the tragedy. The game isn't being exploited financially (it's a free download), the artist/author has taken a personal hit for making it (at least according to the web site)... and it's not like it's a 1st person shooting "simulator".
I was also interested in reading that nearly half of Slamdance's other video game authors [slamdance.com] decided to pull their games in protest of the festival's decision.
Seems the game is much more artistic social commentary than it would appear at first.
Re:Historical games? (Score:3, Interesting)
So yeah, even thirty years later it was a controversial thing to do. I don't know if they ever got in any real trouble over it (they used the zeppelin/blimp imagery on other albums as well) but I think part of it is that "zeppelin" because so synonymous with blimps that any "trademarking" was long since a moot point (see: thermos)
(side note: for those who don't know, the saying that something is going bad is "that will go over like a lead balloon!", i.e., it will crash to the ground - someone morphed this into "going over like a lead zeppelin" and they took the name from that - dropping the "a" of course)